When we published the Singapore Best Course ranking in the May issue of Golf Digest Singapore, I knew I would be opening a Pandora's box, especially among members of the golf clubs. But part of the foundation of journalism is letting the general public know what people think, sometimes at the risk of putting the publication on the "wrong side" of certain opinions.

Some of the findings were expected, like the on-going tussle between Serapong and Garden for the number one spot. However, one of the more eye-opening findings was the fact that Singapore Island Country Club's courses weren't rank as highly as they were expectted to - at least by its members.

I don't profess that we have a full-proof ranking system, and I don't believe anyone in the world has one. At the end of the day, how a golfer feels about a course or clubhouse, or food in the restaurant, is very subjective. Taking into account the restrictions we were working under, I believe that we did compile a good enough, objective, and fairly experienced panel who managed to rank most of the courses in predictable order.

Readers of the rankings should note that the list was compiled independent of how anyone from Golf Digest Singapore really feels. It was solely based on the points given by our panel of independent raters. The magazine is, and will always continue to be, a conduit by which information is disseminated, whether it is how to play a chip shot by Tiger Woods, or how a golf course ranks in the eyes of a fellow golfer. Even when an article or editorial is written by a staff of Golf Digest Singapore it is the author's impressons and views.

Since the article was published, I've had several comments made about the rankings. Much of it stems from inquiries as to how we conducted the reviews. After my explanations, I have yet to hear and disgruntlement or disagreement from any quarter. I hope this is because what we've done - at least for an inaugural effort - makes sense. But behind closed doors, and this is what I'd anticipated, there are those who feel strongly about the ranking of their clubs.

As a life-long member of the Singapore Island Country Club, I am and always have been proud of its heritage and history. Many members share this allegiance as is evident from several members blog sites dedicated to posting views on how to improve Singapore's premier country club. Needless to say that comments and blogs on our ranking of SICC's golf courses have shown up on these blog sites, many of which post very reasonable remarks on the findings.

Right or wrong, the thing to take away from all this is that it is so heartening to see members take the developments - or demise as the case may be - of their club so seriously. Many treat SICC as their second homes. And if they don't want to see their own doorsteps in disrepair, why would they want to see their club as anything but perfectly maintained?

Any non-quantifiable list - that is, those that rely on ratings submitted by human beings as opposed to pure statistics - have their shortcomings. But we mustn't miss the forest for the trees. These lists, and ours is no exception, form interesting talking points, and in no small measure, encourage those with the authority and responsibility to affect the results to put in place certain actions and programmes to do better. Those on top would presumably work doubly hard to make sure they stay there, and those further down the pecking order would, I would expect, want to work even harder to move up the ranks. Ultimately, with the entire list of courses looking to improve, and put in concerted efforts to do so, the beneficiary of all this would eventually be the golfers.

And isn't this what we all hope will happen?

E-mail to Blogger